DISPUTE REVIVED

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 20, 25 January 1938, Page 17

DISPUTE REVIVED

BOMBS & BATTLESHIPS

THE LESSON OF THE ESPANA

FACTORS EXAMINED

Once again, the Bomb-versus-Battle-ship controversy is raging, writes Padraic King in the "Winnipeg Free Press." The long-smouldering row between the experts, as to the defence which warcraft might put up against attack from the air, has flamed anew, as the result of a series of successes by the bombing aeroplanes of the Loyalist Government of Spain over the sea-fighters of the Franconian rebels. When the Spanish rebels' battleship Espana was sunk off . Santander by Loyalist air-bombers, there was at first a tendency on the part of the navy experts to dismiss the incident as of no great naval import. They pointed out that it was an obsolescent type of' fighting, craft,: and..' probably undermanned at the time o£- the bombing, and therefore especially vulnerable to air attack;. Later,' the. die-hards • of : the- navy departments of all the great Powers .expressed serious doubts as to whether the. Espana: had really-been: sunk..by air. bombs. They ; intimated, rather plainly that a mine was responsible for. the fate of ! the- rebel ■ battleship. But,- withal,' the, fact .remains that the Espana now lies deep in the silt and slime of the Bay of Biscay. Then . occurred^an:, incident: which was to stir th% interest of the naval experts of all the first-class Powers, and cause many of the sailor die-hards to waver in their cocksuredness as to the ability of battleships to withstand an attack- from the air. \ On May 29, twilight was just beginning to settle over the harbour of Iviza—insurgent-controlled capital of the island of that name, third largest of the Balearics —where at anchor lay the German pocket battleship Deutschland. DEUXSCHLAND INCIDENT. The sleek and trim German seafighter was a unit of the international naval patrol commissioned to "keep the Spanish war from spreading." It had put into Iviza to refuel. Suddenly, seemingly out of the nowhere, a Loyalist air squadron winged over the harbour. As to just what happened at the moment, there is a conflict of opinion. The prevailing belief is, however, that the Deutschland turned its anti-aircraft batteries on the air raiders. At all events, there is unanimity about one thing—the planes released their 50-pound bombs. Two registered smashing, clean hits, in the forward section of the German pocket battleship. One of these crashed through the deck and exploded in the mess. When the firing ceased and the smoke cleared away, the casualty roll of the Deutschland revealed 23 dead, 83 wounded, and 19 dying. Well, if the sinking of the Espana did not, as many naval experts declared at the time, represent a success in actual war of a bombing plane over a battleship, there could be no questioning the significance of the Deutschland incident. And that earlier raid of the squadron of the Loyalist Government over Palma, of which the world was to learn little, because of the Mussolinian censorship. Out of Minorca zoomed the bombers of Madrid for the capital of Majorca. The Italian naval auxiliary Barletta was the target that day. A Loyalist bomb crashed through the deck and exploded in the officers' mess. The death toll was six. THROUGH THE FUNNEL. Though the Espana was hit by many bombs, the missile which sent the rebels' battleship to the bottom of the Bay of Biscay plunged downward through the funnel, exploding in the engine-room. The number who lost their lives on the Espana will never be known. With the United States proposing to spend 100,000,000 dollars on two new capital ships, the repercussions of the Espana, Deutschland, and Barletta bombings were heard in Washington. Members of Congress would like to know just what this triad of historic incidents mean. As John Bull is also getting ready to expend £30,000,000 on the construction *of new battleships of the Dreadnought type, he, too, is as anxious as Uncle Sam to learn whether he should go ahead with his naval programme or begin building bombing planes. In the controversy which now rages between warships and bombing aeroplanes there can be but one ultimate arbiter —modern /war. True, much may be gleaned from experiments and peace-time exercises. However, when all is said and done, these can only approximate to the test of war. In times of peace, necessary precautions play their part. Aircraft cannot be subjected to antiaircraft fire when delivering an attack; and battleships cannot be subjected to attack by live bombs and torpedoes. But the happenings in Spanish waters are typical of what may be expected in modern war, and thus demand the most intensive study by those entrusted with defence. In 1922 and 1923 the Navy Department of one great Power staged 'a series of bombing tests on a number of old battleships. The tests showed light bombs were more or less ineffective, but when heavy bombs were used the ships were quickly sunk. However, the most serious damage was caused by bombs which actually missed the ships, but exploded close alongside. The .underwater concussion so damaged the hulls below the waterline that the ships sank. NAVY UNCONVINCED. As a result of these bombing tests naval experts almost to a man declared the battleship could not be eliminated from the naval front line. Since then bombing planes, bombs, and bombing technique have all been improved, as have been defensive measures. Yet naval experts continue to make light of the fact that warships are now under the necessity of being armoured and defended against attack from the air, and that at the present moment very few of them are even partially prepared; that the cost imposed is very heavy and the necessary provision a handicap. Most important of all,: the naval experts ignore the fact that a fleet of which only a few ships are completely equipped in this respect is a vulnerable fleet, its movements and action hampered at every stage. It is impossible, also, to agree wholeheartedly with the air enthusiasts and a ■ minority of naval opinion that the air bomb has rendered the battleship useless. Nor can one accept, without reservation, as already noted, the opinion that battleships have nothing to fear from aircraft attack. One of the problems facing a navy in defending itself against air attack is uncertainty as to the method which may be employed. There are three main forms of assault which may be used individually or in combination with machine-gun attack as a possible important auxiliary. The high-altitude precision bombing attack can be very accurate nowadays, .although a battleship presents a very

small mark from any great height, even if stationary. This method has the disadvantage that to take accurate aim the bombing machine must fly a straight course for an appreciable time before reaching the point at which its bomb must be dropped. This gives the anti-aircraft guns time to get ineffective fire. APPROACH UNOBSERVED. On the other hand, at great heights and under suitable weather conditions, a formation of bombers might approach unobserved and unload its bombs before the anti-aircraft guns could get to work. American and British naval experts maintain that the manoeuvreability of a battleship would render precisionbombing ineffective, and only a small percentage of the missiles would prove dangerous. The contention of the airmen is that the rate of turn of a battleship at speed is so slow and regular that its manoeuvres would not interfere with accuracy. High-altitude bombing has one distinct advantage—penetration. Armourpiercing bombs would tear through deck armour and explode within the ship in much the same fashion as does an armour-piercing shell. Armourpiercing bombs contain relatively little explosive in proportion to their mass as compared with light-cased bombs for blast effects. Of course, they would be of no service if they fell into the sea. Bombs for blast effect would not penetrate but would damage the superstructure. If arranged for delayed action they would cause damage by concussion if they fell alongside a warship. Thus, high-altitude bombing might demand a wide range of action. Various types of bombs would have to be carried to meet conditions as they arose. Such an arrangement would not only prove uneconomical, but probably impose too heavy a burden on the fighting machine. FIGHTERS OF THE FLEET. As to the defence of a warship from attacking formations of enemy machines, the flying fighters of the fleet i would play an important role. Of course, the airmen of a battleship squadron would require' ample warning of the approach of the enemy to allow them to take oft from the ships and reach their height to give combat to the precision bombers. In case of surprise, fleet flyers would render but little service. But those advocates of air power who go to extremes and hold that the! air bomber can displace the capital ship as the" ultimate arbiter of the command of the sea seem to forget one thing and underestimate another. In their argument that a bomb can damage a battleship, they forget that the warcraft is not likely to be alone. In the piping times of peace, when en route to or from her station, a battleship may be found alone on the j high' seas. But in war, a single bat- j tleship will not be encountered on the ocean. Moreover, the squadron of battleships will not go unattended. | Capital ships, cruisers, and destroyers ] form a battle fleet. | Dive bombing is now the most favoured form of bombing attack. The attackers reach great heights and dive on tbeir target, actually pointing their machines at it, and release their bombs at about 2000 feet. This method is very accurate, but the bombs lack the penetration of those droppped from great heights. Without taking counter measures into consideration, the naval experts do not regard this form of attack as particularly menacing. True, bombs may, if i they hit, make a nasty mess of superstructures. But the modern warship is designed to carry on without superstructures. The naval experts further claim that diving attacks can be combated by anti-aircraft guns. Alternatively, the flying fighters of the fleet can be sent up to intercept the enemy once he is sighted or known to be approaching and will at any rate be able to engage him after lie has dived to deliver his attack, even if they have not time to intercept him before he dives. The third method of bombing attack is by torpedo. The torpedo bombers dive, down and launch their torpedoes at the ships and climb rapidly away with all possible speed. They have to fly straight and low, parallel to the water, for a few moments, while sighting their target, and releasing the tor- j pedo. And it is in that brief period j when anti-aircraft and other guns can be trained on them with effect. - It is also possible to put up a barrage of shell fire in front of them and even a barrage of water splashes from shells striking the water. A torpedo bombing machine striking a shell splash stands a good chance of being wrecked. But a torpedo bombing foray under cover of hazy weather might surprise a battleship and deliver its missile before the guns could be brought into play.